Al Franken's funniest moment

[MigL]

And I'm sure there are people (whether Republican or Democrat ) who don't have to take responsibility for their bad actions because they never behaved badly towards women.

So what if he takes responsibility for his actions ???
He did commit them !

I ( and his victims ) don't care if he's a good or bad Politician, Democrat or Republican.
He's a flawed human being who happens to be in a position of power, and preys on women.

Why do you insist on getting down in the mud with waitforufo, and making this a discussion about which politics is more 'honorable' ?
I don't remember politics being mentioned at all in the OP ( although we all knew ), so why take the bait ?

Edited December 9, 2017 by MigL

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why do you insist on getting down in the mud with waitforufo, and making this a discussion about which politics is more 'honorable' ?

I don't remember politics being mentioned at all in the OP ( although we all knew ), so why take the bait ?

Because that's what waitforufo does here. To use Trump's and every other conservative's excuse, waitforufo hit first and yet you'd excuse or block any criticism by deflecting on non-issues and accusing  the rebuttals of doing what the OP is doing.

Just another daily example of the conservative double standard for all to see.

[iNow]

Let’s see if we can move on and maybe broaden this conversation. 

Franken was consistently voting in favor of increased protections for women, greater access and equality, and was very much an ally to the feminist cause. 

Does it do more harm than good to force his resignation? Is the symbolism of his eviction more powerful than the reliability of his favorable vote?

Did Dems miss the forest for the trees on this one, or will they instead reap the rewards and benefit from taking the moral high ground and having the courage of their convictions?

It’s hard for me to say yes given that outright denial appears to be the winning strategy, but what say you?

[rangerx]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

Did Dems miss the forest for the trees on this one, or will they instead reap the rewards and benefit from taking the moral high ground and having the courage of their convictions?

It’s hard for me to say yes given that outright denial appears to be the winning strategy, but what say you?

Franken appears in a mix of admission and denial. Seems realistic under the circumstances. If Franken deserves to be pilloried, there ought to be some other heads having rotten fruit cast at them too.

Republicans have zero moral authority. None. Not only is moral authority gone, it went backwards in time.

And that's a shame really, because there are upstanding factions within the republican party that have been relegated to the same scorn.

[iNow]

As best I can tell, you answered none of the actual questions I posed. 

[MigL]

Same strategy, eh Ranger ?
"Yeah, but waitforufo did it first"
 What's next?
" Sure I killed someone, but the other guy killed ten"

A Franken, the politician, did not get turfed by his party because of his politics.
( I thought that was his true calling. He was good at it, not as a mediocre comedian )

He was forced to resign because A Franken, the man, mistreated women.
Democrats ( and Republicans ) have no bearing in this conversation unless you're doing a comparison or drawing equivalency.

[iNow]

So much for moving forward and broadening the conversation

[MigL]

I'm sorry iNow, but if this thread is about Democrat morals as opposed to Republican morals, I must have misread the OP.

[rangerx]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm sorry iNow, but if this thread is about Democrat morals as opposed to Republican morals, I must have misread the OP.

Well... it was predictably posted in the political section of this forum, by a hyper-partisan contributor who earned a little holiday right around that time.

Republican or Democrat has everything to do with OP and their agenda. It has everything to do with practicing what is preached (or the pervasive lack of same)

I agree wholeheartedly, you are correct in the sense it shouldn't be about politics, do you need a notarized letter from my lawyer or a biplane to tow it across the sky of your town? Yet made it about politics nonetheless.  This after telling me I can't raise political parties in a political thread about a politician on a board you don't moderate.Does that seem a little authoritarian in your view?

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Democrats ( and Republicans ) have no bearing in this conversation unless you're doing a comparison or drawing equivalency.

Okay some rules, your rules. With that, I have to ask the authoritarian thingy question, again.

[MigL]

Authoritarian ??
No, not at all.
But I am questioning your comprehension.

[rangerx]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

But I am questioning your comprehension.

I can't discuss political parties, but you can discuss my comprehension. Got it.

 

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Authoritarian ??
No, not at all.

Yes, always.

[Ten oz]

On 11/16/2017 at 5:18 PM, waitforufo said:

Someone should tell Al Franken that the first rule of sexual harassment is no photographs. He does look like he is enjoying himself. The release of this photograph does have perfect comedic timing considering the current plethora of sexual harassment news stories.  Just look at the expression on his face.    

Al is now asking for an ethics investigation on himself. A perfect punch line for the above photo.  It should be the shortest ethics investigation in Senate history.  Just show everyone on the committee the above photo and let them vote. 

 

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Why do you insist on getting down in the mud with waitforufo, and making this a discussion about which politics is more 'honorable' ?
I don't remember politics being mentioned at all in the OP ( although we all knew ), so why take the bait ?

The OP clearly mentions the "plethora of sexual harassment new stories" which include but are not limited to people like Weinstein and Trump. If you go to the Weinstein thread there are a few posters ( including yourself ) that made the argument that things like  Weinstein's history of behavior was a blight on Hollywood culture at large. First page of the Weinstein thread you posted: "But then again, I stopped considering 'Hollywood types' as normal people, a long time ago. How many of these 'stars' still support R Polansky so many years after the statutory rape ? ( maybe they think society's rules don't apply to them )"

It seems you only want to include a perpetrators professional associations when it suits you. Politicians are more directly associated with their Parties (Parties being tangible things) than any individual producer is associated with "Hollywood Types".

8 hours ago, MigL said:

He was forced to resign because A Franken, the man, mistreated women.
Democrats ( and Republicans ) have no bearing in this conversation unless you're doing a comparison or drawing equivalency

Who forced Franken to resign; you say Democrat vs Republican has no bearing here yet it is Democrats who forced Franken out. 

[MigL]

You're being disingenuous, Ten oz.
You can draw an association between just about anything.

The fact that A Franken is in a position of power, as a comedian/entertainor or a Senator/politician is what allows him to disrespect women.
And the fact that it doesn't happen just in politics, but with producers like H Weinstein, newsmen like C Rose and M Lauer, and so many others is proof that it is not a symptom of political ideology.

There are plenty of threads about Democrats vs Republicans as there are about D Trump.
Why does every thread have to devolve into a discussion about the polarization of American politics or D Trump's idiocy ?

As I've stated previously, the polarization , which you and others seem to embrace, is what got us into this mess ( presidential idiocy ) in the first place. But if you guys want to make every thread about Republicans vs Democrats, or about D Trump, then knock yourselves out. I've said my piece and you guys ( like waitforufo ) wanna keep contributing to the problem.
Majority rules.

[Outrider]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Does it do more harm than good to force his resignation? 

No his and our and the DNC's actions speak louder than the words. Its never a bad time to do the right thing.

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Did Dems miss the forest for the trees on this one, or will they instead reap the rewards and benefit from taking the moral high ground and having the courage of their convictions?

Well I hope so it resonates highly with me and I doubt I am alone in this. However me and many others see the DNC as corrupt and it will take a lot more than this to change that perception. Also the DNC did drag their feet early on and it does look as if their decisions were guided more by public opinion and less by internal virtue.

Forcing these resignations is a good first step. But it will take many of these steps for me to see them as reformed. 

BTW the GOP needs to do the same thing.

[Ten oz]

15 hours ago, MigL said:

He was forced to resign because A Franken, the man, mistreated women.

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

he fact that A Franken is in a position of power, as a comedian/entertainor or a Senator/politician is what allows him to disrespect women.

Being famous enabled him to mistreat women but what forced him out? You are working hard to ignore the politics aspects of his resignation. 

 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

As I've stated previously, the polarization , which you and others seem to embrace, is what got us into this mess ( presidential idiocy ) in the first place. But if you guys want to make every thread about Republicans vs Democrats, or about D Trump, then knock yourselves out. I've said my piece and you guys ( like waitforufo ) wanna keep contributing to the problem

In my opinion it is apathetic positions like the one above which insist on pretending all is equal partisanship that has created the problem. During segregation in the South people were polarized between those who wanted segregation and those who did not. Polarization in itself doesn't make all sides equal. There can still be right and wrong, smart and dumb, useful and useless within partisan battles. 

[rangerx]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 Polarization in itself doesn't make all sides equal. There can still be right and wrong, smart and dumb, useful and useless within partisan battles. 

It's the whole narrative thing. A conservative troll writes the OP to give the impression liberals need to sweep the floor and clean house. Then MigL jumps in and tell us what broom to use and what stokes to take. Meanwhile the conservative house is caked in shit and no one lifts a finger.

[MigL]

Thanks again for the comparison, RangerX.
You seem to want to prove every point I make.

What if, during the H Weinstein discussion, everytime someone mentioned what Harv had done, I countered with...
"Sure, but at least he's seeking treatment, look at what Louis B Mayer did to Judy Garland, and got away with it"

Would that have been seen as a fair comment ?
Or would you have jumped all over it as I'm doing with you ?

[Outrider]

19 hours ago, rangerx said:

The fact that he takes responsibility for his actions, while others who are accused (namely republicans) don't.

Never heard of Trent Franks?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happens-now-that-trent-franks-has-resigned/

Quote

 

Rep. Trent Franks, a conservative pro-life Republican, has resigned after revealing that he discussed surrogacy with two female staffers. One former aide told The Associated Press that the Arizona congressman pressured her to carry his child and once offered her $5 million to be a surrogate mother.

The eight-term lawmaker initially said he would leave office on Jan. 31. But after getting an ultimatum from House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., he announced Friday he would step aside immediately, starting a clock for elections to replace him.

 

 

[rangerx]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Thanks again for the comparison, RangerX.
You seem to want to prove every point I make.

What if, during the H Weinstein discussion, everytime someone mentioned what Harv had done, I countered with...
"Sure, but at least he's seeking treatment, look at what Louis B Mayer did to Judy Garland, and got away with it"

Would that have been seen as a fair comment ?
Or would you have jumped all over it as I'm doing with you ?

No, because it's a hypothetical scenario, no less a ridiculous comment driven from the phony narrative that I (we) am/are  some kind of apologist for liberal sexists.

Conservatives have no moral authority to preach to anyone about moral authority.

 

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

Well I hope so it resonates highly with me and I doubt I am alone in this.

I hope so, too. Thanks for answering the question I posed. 

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

actions speak louder than the words. Its never a bad time to do the right thing.

Point well made. 

[MigL]

Sorry for my absence, I was in Toronto watching the Toronto FC kicking the  Seattle Sounder's ass, and hoist the MLS trophy.

I have never accused you of being an apologist for a liberal sexist, RangerX.
What I have accused you of is defending a sexist, who waitforufo threw in your face just because he is a Liberal, and you , being equally partisan, took the bait and defend him  ( even if you abhor his actions ) also because he is a Liberal.

Your partisanship is on display by the way you generalise about Conservatives in your above post, painting them all with the same brush, and claiming none are 'moral'.
Bigoted much ?

[rangerx]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

 and you , being equally partisan

No. waitforufo trolls from the fringe. He got the boot for it, no guts to defend it. Quit with the outright lies, already.

I stand in the middle and I see right through your obsession to paint me as though I'm not.

Besides that to invoke your self proclaimed authority, WTF does that have to do with Al Franken?

Pfft.

[Outrider]

Well we can add democrat Alcee Hastings to the list of the accused. 

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a2b39d2e4b073789f6a01bc
 

Quote

 

Taxpayer funds to the tune of $220,000 were used to settle a lawsuit charging Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) with sexual harassment, Roll Call has reported.

It’s the second reported instance of taxpayer money being being used to settle a sexual harassment claim against a congressman. Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) used $84,000 in taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment claim.